Political unrest within the advocating for Nullification virtually declares the United States Constitution nonexistent. To propel, and support secession is radical and creates separate entities trying to coexist amongst each other while avoiding the issue. In the matters of the government, constitutional propriety should be enforced and upheld with the upmost respect. However, when the driving force behind promoting constitutional propriety has a hidden agenda that is repugnant in nature then there is bound to be disputes. The Nullification Crisis was a result of the Tariff of 1828 and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were the result of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The similarities between the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Tariff of 1828, is that both on the surface, seemingly were actions implemented by Congress because of war. These parallel actions also were induced by political parties seizing an opportunity to publically discredit, embarrass, and fluster the opposing party. Much like today, of one political party attempting to dominate Congress, the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the Federalist controlled congress was an attempt to weaken the Jeffersonian Republicans. The passing of the Tariff of 1828 was to economically protect industries in the north, which weaken the southern states. This further aggravated the intensely growing animosity between the Northern and Southern States. Unilaterally, the Tariff of 1828 favored the northern industries and caused the southern states especially South Carolina to pay higher prices on goods that they were unable to produce. The difference between the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the Nullification Crisis brought on by the Tariff of 1828 was economic... ... middle of paper ... ...larities of the political actions. Nullification is a precursor to secession in the United States as it is also for civil wars. However, in contrast, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not suggest that states should secede from the union. Under the direct vigilance and radical views of Calhoun, he suggested that states should and could secede from the union if they deem a law was unconstitutional. Calhoun’s reputation as a “Cast Iron” proved fittingly as compromises were reached for the proposed Tariffs. The southern states contribution to the financial welfare of the union as a result of slavery was undoubtedly substantial, but as history unfolded, it was not a just means to financial stability. His views of constitutional propriety was for the “privileges of minority” rather than for the “rights of the minority.” [2] Works Cited The American Pageant
In, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to successfully prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to
Document D presents the issue of the national bank, which was a hotly contested issue for most of the nation’s history. The decision to force states to allow the national bank reiterated the issue of state powers versus federal powers. This issue showed clear divisions between the northern states, who were more supportive of federal powers, and the southern states, who were more in favor of states rights. The financial decisions made in the Era of Good Feelings were often perceived as benefitting the southern states more than the northern states, causing separatism. Document A presents the issues of the Tariff of 1816. As demonstrated in the document, the southerners felt unfairly taxed, and did not feel as if they were getting anything out of the taxation. This type of disagreement about tariffs would continue, eventually leading to greater separatism and division. For these reasons, the title “The Era of Good Feelings” inaccuratly sums up the economic occurrences after the war of
South Carolina’s decision to invalidate the federal law and deem the tariff unconstitutional was the first blatant disregard for the centralized government. The United States, under Jackson’s presidency, did not unite and support one another in the face of the economic tariff and hardships. Instead, the states nullified (South Carolina in particular) and the individualistic ideals and motivations of the states were exposed. State opinions, such as that of South Carolina were focused solely on their own personal benefit and how they would survive the hardships of the tariff. During the Age of Jackson, there was no unification between the states. The ideals of Jacksonian America were flawed by the growing sectionalism and individualistic ideals. The total equality and unification that Jacksonian America attempted to create was no longer an option. Jacksonian America failed, and in result, did not promote the unified democracy in the United
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
Politically, there were questions about the amount power given to the federal government vs the states; as question since the adoption of the Constitution. At times states felt the need to question the power federal government. For example in the Decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) confirmed that no state could tax federal property, enforcing the supremacy clause (Document D). While this reinforced a nationalist point of view that challenge was clearly sectionalist in nature. Efforts to diffuse political rivalries were also present. An example was the request for Missouri statehood in late 1819 who was also requesting that slavery be permitted. To diffuse the sectionalist debate the Missouri Compromise was placed by congress. At the time the U.S. contained 22 states, evenly divided between slave and free. (Page 155).... (QUOTE BY JEFFERSON) A sectionalism standpoint was also depicted in the presidential election of 1824 where each state differed in voting for the men running for the same position (Document
This helped manufacturers from New England, and led to a crisis known as the nullification crisis. Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina argued that states had a right to nullify this law. Many southerners were against tariff because they feared that if the federal government could do that, they could end slavery as well. They hoped to stop this by nullifying the tariff law because it would weaken the federal government. President Andrew Jackson defended the tariffs, and Congress listened to Jackson, and passed another tariff law. After that, South Carolina became fed up and threatened to secede. Eventually, the two sides came to peace and ended the
A controversial issue during 1860 to 1877 was state’s rights and federal power. The North and South were divided over this issue. The North composed of free states and an industrial economy while the South was made up of slave states and an agricultural economy. The South did not like federal authority over the issue of slavery; therefore, they supported the radical state rights’ ideology. South Carolina seceded from the Union because it believed that since states made up the Union, it could leave when it chooses to. The government argued against the South saying that they had no right to leave the Union because the Union was not made up of just states but people. However, the South counteracted this argument with the case that the 10th amendment “declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by its states, were reserved to the states.” (Doc A) However, the government still believed that secession from the Union was unjust and decided that a new change surrounding state’s rights was necessary. As a result, when the Union won in the Civil War, a resolution was made, where the state’s lost their power and the federal government gained power. U...
As the country began to grow and expand we continued to see disagreements between the North and South; the Missouri Territory applied for statehood the South wanted them admitted as a slave state and the North as a free state. Henry Clay eventually came up with the Missouri Compromise, making Missouri a slave state and making Maine it’s own state entering the union as a free state. After this compromise any state admitted to the union south of the 36° 30’ latitude would be a slave state and a state north of it would be free. The country was very much sectionalized during this time. Thomas Jefferson felt this was a threat to the Union. In 1821, he wrote, ”All, I fear, do not see the speck on our horizon which is to burst on us as a tornado, sooner or later. The line of division lately marked out between the different portions of our confederacy is such...
...Sedition Acts exercise a power nowhere delegated to the Federal government...this commonwealth does declare that the said Alien and Sedition Acts are violations of the said Constitution." The resolutions nullified the laws and contributed to the rise of Republicanism and the fall of Federalism.
Crisis struck in 1820, when the North/South balance in the Senate was threatened by the application of Missouri to join the Union as a slave state. Southerners, aware of their numerical inferiority in the House of Representatives, were keen to maintain their political sway, in the Senate. The North feared that if Southerners were to take control of the Senate, political deadlock would ensue. Compromise was found in 1820 when Maine applied to join as a free state, maintaining the balance.
In The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War”, Paul Finkelman discusses some of the events that he believes lead the United States to have a Civil War. He discusses how both the North and the South territories of the Untied States did not see eye to eye when it came to ab...
...ld not protect the interest of the Southern states. Coupled with the hostilities, lack of votes for Lincoln from the South and disregard for the constitutional protection of slavery is a justifiable reason from the Southern leaders to secede from the Union.
In the years of 1830 through 1860, a breach in the unity between the North and the South of the United States occurred. They faced an
...om’s Cabin in 1852, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and the outcome of the Presidential Election of 1860—created conditions where Southerners felt the need to secede from the United States (they felt that their “way of life” was being threatened), as well as created conditions where the Northerners decided to go to war against the Southern Confederacy in order to maintain the Union. It is not surprising, however, that the Civil War occurred; since the Industrial Revolution, the Industrial North had always been different than the Agricultural South. If each region paid more attention to resolving the issues that separated them, instead of trying to prove themselves right, they could have stopped the bloodiest battle in American history (even though this is using hindsight knowledge).